View Full Version : a very interesting new look at the brain

05-03-15, 06:48 PM
so at night before bed I usually do 1 of 3 things(well, 4:p)
watch science documentaries/discussions/forums.
read/watch movies/tv series.
play vidja games.

yesterday I watched a science forum from the world science festival about the brain, about the pursuit of genius and how that has lead us to were we are now.

the real interesting part, the thing I think everyone here should watch is when the cellular guy starts talking at 42 minutes.

I really couldn't do it justice, just watch it at 42 minutes. it is seriously one of the most mind bending concepts I have seen about this subject in a long time, that the model we use for the brain is over 100 years old and we have ignored a HUGE part of the brain that isn't electrically impulsed, but almost makes more of a difference on our brain than neurons do.

05-03-15, 11:04 PM
HOLY **** that was amazing! In fact, it's a good thing you can say **** on this forum, so they just bleep it out for me. I will think of glia for a long time now. Thanks! Good thing I never sniffed glue, because I have a lot of glia to protect, evidently.

05-05-15, 10:58 AM
I've been slowly plodding through an article on quantum physics and the brain, that essentially points out that even looking at the electrical/chemical interactions have been based on 100 year old physics... There's a lot of the assumptions that were made about the function of neurons that break down when you start looking at the quantum effects in the process.

I'll be interested to learn more about the glial cells, too! Thanks for sharing!

05-07-15, 08:30 AM
Glial cells to Neurone sounds like epigenetics to genome.

Skimmed video (may be misrepresenting) but at

control people / sell things <- point of 'killing' creativity

^^Interesting idea - though I'd argue that it's more

an individual's desire to control people [desire for power] / desire to buy [desire for money] -> kills creativity

problem with creativity - conflating 'intelligence' geniuses with informational (art) geniuses

Why ?

'intelligence' geniuses - we're rapidly arriving at an understanding of reality note not capacity to alter reality - in fact capacity to know that we should not alter reality eg backlash against pharmaceutical corps, agrochemical corps, energy corps.

'informational' geniuses - everybody loves a certain piece of music

But the problem with genius is that the point of life isn't to be a genius - it's to be happy.

Laser-like focus on (forget 'intelligence' genius) but art ... ... would drive me mad - as I'd NEVER attain the quality that I'd need to relax - would just be eaten up by the drive to perfection.

Perfection can't be obtained.

So - and this won't be a poplar idea - but genius as a pathology of sorts with connections to depression - and an effective meaning of life being to be happy -

from the video (not watched in detail) - but a triumph of parietal over frontal cortex.

By pathology - I mean that driving people towards being a genius ie taking somebody with a particular speciality and forcing them out of all other ventures into extreme specialization in one subject - which then develops into obsession - as not being healthy ie that genius developed could lead into pathology [purely environmental model] rather than genetic predisposition to mental disease increases facility for genius.

The placement of genius on a pedestal is perhaps more to do with society and its false adoration of the ego - people who want to be special and able to differentiate themselves from one another ... ... strong belief that happiness comes from shedding the ego and with it the mind which seeks to be and also the mind which could be a genius.


If you're happy - I don't think that you need anything other than nature to look at, nature to eat, nature to move through -
I don't see anything that the human genius produces which is necessary once reaching the state of happiness (bliss).

But - how about getting there ?
Does the genius provide information (science / art) which can help somebody attain the state of bliss.

Yes - presumably the genius would help others to attain happiness through helping them to build a mind.

But the emphasis on genius is over played.

Does it matter whether it takes 1 person to build a bridge ... ... when 5 people could do it equally as well ?

Does anybody think that if we deleted 1000 geniuses from human history that we wouldn't still be where we are today ie with an understanding of reality from the very small to a collection of art of the very beautiful ?

All human beings are expendable - as a species we've a defined trajectory - and we'll get there regardless.

The emphasis on genius often relates to somebody who arrived there first by happenstance - somebody else would have arrived there first in a different context.

To be a genius - I think somebody has to contribute something that nobody else could ever contribute - and I don't think that that exists - where 'that' is necessary in helping the individual/species attain happiness (bliss).

05-07-15, 09:13 AM
Glial cells to Neurone sounds like epigenetics to genome.

Back around we come to the idea of

differentiation <- function -> integration

Evolution appears to work by placing a regulatory scheme which 'integrates' function.

Glial cells integrate neural function.
Epigenetics integrate genomic function.

This is pretty much the relationship of

left <- right brain

Right brain integrates left brain function.


^^^ that's funny ^^ that's the precise point made in the still above

right brain - parallel processor
left brain - serial processor


Which all gets to the core of somehthing that should drive all students mad.

Why does differentiation/integration (maths) work ?
They're so easy to do - but why do they work.

They work because we're in a reality which is formed through scaling integrals ?
That calculus works defines the nature of reality ie 'God' working to a pattern.


So - if we've the pattern - then science wins - no - religion wins - because if you've a

[ function eg <- integral ]

completed construct - then something completely unprecedented will occur [emerge] when the construct has formed.


Why's this important ?
Because human beings are defined by 'knowing' and 'knowing' (intelligence genius) is about to end with the blueprint of evolution/creation

- meaning that we've reached a model [mind] which'll represent completion ie the structure will have been assembled.

Something interesting should then happen.

What do I want to happen ?

I want human beings to be able to survive without food.


Relation to the video -

the glial cell connection shouldn't surprise us given the 'integral' model of evolution.

Genius - personal preference - should relate to capacity to teach something to somebody which that somebody else finds benefits that individual in his/her quest to happiness.
ie a model of genius as clarity of communication - not the model we have in society of 'special' unprecedented - but more a model of facilitating his/her own 'redundancy' into common knowledge/common capacity.

When it's obvious - rather than impenetrable - and people cannot imagine how things could ever have been any other way - and it was before one's personal contribution - then you'll see a genius that is forgotten but has made a contribution in navigating the collective lot into sunnier climes.

05-17-15, 04:15 PM
well. the point of this was just the glia in the brain.

however I don't think teh overall focus is on genius persay as to how the manifestation of all these *geniuses* as we view them in society has helped psychology and paved a roadmap to new understandings of the brain that would not be there before.

a hypothetical question is how you come up with scientific questions. we could end it at the notion that genius is a foundation of societal thinking, and I think you would be right because I think everyone is a genius in their own way(and I really mean that, it isn't a cop out).

but the question "why" or " what if" is how you push the bounds, even on such a intangible observation as genius. and doing so has lead to questioning our own understanding of the brain... not just now, but in times of the past.

4 out of 6 of those guys are scientists in their own field, so they have to frame the debate in a way that is accessible to those that aren't, to sort of tell the story of science, and not just dish out cold hard facts that can make people uncomfortable at first, so you set the stage with an idea that everyone is familiar with and interested in precisely because it is almost so intangible of an idea.

like in writing, movies and whatever, the main character has to be familiar to the audience or else you can't take them on the adventure and understanding that can come from having just that one frame of reference. (not to say all movies are like this, but those are niche for a reason)

in other words, the title is just a smoke screen to take us down further in the rabbit hole than we otherwise might not go down(I would:D)

05-29-15, 11:35 AM
I personally feel that the "geniuses" are not the ones who create progress as a species, but they are the ones who often steer our species in a new direction, or give us a new perspective on our progress, or give us new tools to achieve our goals.

I also feel that genius is often defined by the outcome, not the intelligence. There are plenty of people in this world who I would consider to be geniuses, but may never be seen as such because their insights, while furthering progress, do not create the social impact of the Da Vinci's, the Plato's, the Einstein's, the Ghandi's and the Gutenberg's.